The single-judge bench of Justice Ashok Kumar C. Joshi, referring to section 19 (2) of the Food Adulteration Act sided with the earlier order given by the judicial magistrate siding with the vender and owner of Didar Traders.
Brief Facts of the Case
A food inspector went to inspect the quality of food at Didar Traders, when the food inspector reached there, he identified himself to the vendor and owner of the shop who were present at that moment and he took a sample of "Marshal Agmark Chili Powder" worth 450 grams which was sealed in three clean jars and sent to the public analyst for analysis of the food.
Later when the results came out it was found out that there was artificial colour and wheat starch added in the chilli powder, after this the food inspector obtained the necessary sanction from the local health authority and lodged a complaint against the vendor and the owner of Didar Traders. In response to this the vendor and owner argued that it was the manufacturer who was responsible for the adulteration and they were not aware about it, they took the help of the case State of Gujarat Vs. Ramesh Chandra Gandalal Shah and others, 2015 in which it was held by the high court that if the warranties and invoices could be produced then it would be the manufacturer who would be responsible.
High Court's Observation
The court looking at the arguments referred the cases of Mallikarjun Kodagali Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2018 Latest Caselaw 758 SC and Chaman Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2020 Latest Caselaw 636 SC which helped in the emphasising of the limited nature of interference of criminal appeals and the presumption of innocence which is attached to every case like the present one.
With the help of this Justice AC Joshi sided with the vendor and owner of the shop stating that they are not the manufactures of the good and hence are not responsible for the quality and warranty of it, this was supported by the Section 19(2) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 which states that the Vendor shall not be deemed to have committed any offence. If he has purchased the article of food in any other status from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with written warranty in the prescribed form.
Keeping all of this in mind the court held that the accused were not responsible for the adulteration and any charges against them were levelled by the court.
Case Title: State of Gujrat through B.M Patel, Food Inspector Versus Naushadali Najarali Dhanani C/O Didar Traders
Case Details: R/CR.A/503/2013Bench:
Coram: Justice Ashok Kumar C. Joshi
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
